No Airbnb, you can’t really say you had a recent “victory” in SF. A pyrrhicvictory, maybe. (But your $8+ million helped to defeat Prop F, I’ll concede that.)

“It’s hard to be a tech company in SF.” What on Earth does this mean? Why don’t you leave then, if things are so, so hard (but not really, not IRL) here?

Oh, so using SF’s direct democracy ballot system when, as in this case, we have regulatory capture of the $F Democratic Party (and other$) is not only immature but “ridiculously immature?” Again, one wonders why Airbnb chose to come here to this horrible, horrible place.

In regard to the “Airbnb Law,” didn’t Airbnb meet with then-Supervisor David Chiu something on the order of sixty (60) (!) times to craft regs as favorable to Airbnb as practically possible? I think so. Am I wrong on this? David Chiu was/is a partner of Airbnb, non? David Chiu is now in the Assembly thanks, in part, to Airbnb, non? So that’s what some people mean by the term Airbnb Law. (And incidentally, it was/is an unworkable mess, with a very low compliance rate, so far.)

No, Airbnb, Prop F would not have “ban[ned] in-law units.”

No, Airbnb, Prop F would not “have created a private right of action,” for the simple reason that Prop F didn’t pass and yet San Franciscans have a private right of action right now.

Let’s stop now to ponder – does Kara Swisher know any of this stuff? She’s not up-to-speed, apparently, or she is and she wants to conduct a fawning interview. I’ll tell you, so far so good, KS. Mission accomplished.

Does one need to be “against Airbnb” to approve of regulating Airbnb?

“Even the San Francisco Chronicle…” I don’t know what this means. Was this editorial from the Publisher a surprise? Not at all. Also note that the Chron calls for changes to the regs cooked up by Airbnb and David Chiu…

“[T]here’s this notion that we aren’t paying our share of taxes.” Well, here’s where that comes from. How much in hotel taxes should Airbnb have remitted as opposed to the mystery amount that it actually did – well, that’s not really knowable from outside of Airbnb.

“We’re not jerks.” So why not explain what happened with the bus ads? Your choice, Airbnb. Are the people down in Socal who made the ads jerks? What did you do, just throw money around and say, oh don’t bother us, just make a contract with ClearChannel after you run it by a solitary Airbnber – that’ll be fine. We like surprises! And of course, this ad campaign was totally totally independent of anything having to do with Prop F. Of course.

“Volunteers” knocking on 285,000 doors? Weren’t some of those “volunteers” actually paid, like with cash money? Yep. You want to get into this? We can get into this.

Reference to “party houses.” I don’t think this issue was addressed. Or Airbnb Hotel, neither – these We Heart Airbnb podcast people didn’t have time to get into these things. I guess they were too busy with the “Holiday Gift Guide,” IDK.

And what’s this – “I think the vast, vast majority of people are renting the homes they live in.” So what’s that as a number, is it 51%?IDK.Doesn’t Airbnb know this stat for San Francisco, like down to five significant digits? I think so. And how about this – most Airbnb units in SF are being rented out by people who rent out multiple Airbnb units. Is that true? Isn’t that a problem?

I think we’re at 24:00 now, so that’s ten minutes of audio for you to listen to.

“After Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors screwed up short-term rental legislation not once but twice, voters now face a choice: keep current law or replace it with Prop F. Those upset over “ballot box planning” should blame City Hall for not enacting the handful of changes that would have either prevented Prop F from going to the ballot or ensured its defeat.”

Airbnb don’t want no Prop F, so one assumes it’s all prepared for City Hall to take a fresh look at this regulatory mess (that Airbnb helped create) come 2016. Fine.

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 18, 2012 — San Francisco city contractors and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) have ganged up to defeat Proposition F, the Water Conservation & Yosemite Restoration Initiative, the most recently released campaign finance reports disclosed. According to the reports(1), 47% of funding for the ‘No on F’ campaign has come from companies currently doing business with San Francisco; companies with past contracts with the City, and labor unions representing contracted workers with the City. In addition, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has spent an undisclosed amount of money entertaining San Francisco community leaders at the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, as well as more than $197,000 in federal funds promoting the “Hetch Hetchy Brand” to San Francisco voters.

“These public records demonstrate that San Francisco City Hall and its employees have arm-twisted city contractors to extract hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose reform. It’s typical ‘pay-to-play’ politics to defend the status quo and fight water conservation,” said Mike Marshall, Campaign Director for the Yosemite Restoration Campaign. “It’s made that much worse by the improper use of rate-payer and federal funds by the staff of the SFPUC in the run-up to, and during, the campaign.”

Proposition F is the “Water Conservation & Yosemite Restoration Initiative.” It requires the City to develop a two-part plan to build San Francisco’s local water resources and reverse the damage done to the environment by the current water system over the last 100 years. The plan would need to be approved by voters in 2016 in order to be implemented.

ABOUT THE YOSEMITE RESTORATION CAMPAIGN: The mission of the Yosemite Restoration Campaign is to reform San Francisco’s 19th century water system to allow for the restoration of Hetch HetchyValley and the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park. It is a non-profit, 501(c)(4) organization. www.YosemiteRestoration.org

‘No on F’ Campaign Finance Fact Sheet

According to campaign finance reports filed on Friday, October 5 the ‘No on F’ campaign received:

— $131,122 from companies currently doing business with the City and County of San Francisco.

— $69,729 from companies with past contracts with the City and County of San Francisco.

— $43,500 from labor unions representing individuals working on projects for the City and County of San Francisco.

According to public record requests the SFPUC staff has spent:

— $197,000 in federal EPA funds promoting the Hetch Hetchy water brand. The funds were intended to encourage San Francisco residents to call 311 to report water quality problems. (2)

— An undisclosed amount of money organizing eight junkets to Yosemite National Park for local Democratic Club leaders, ‘No on F'” funders, neighborhood association leaders and gay rights activists. Despite multiple Sunshine Ordinance requests, SFPUC staff have ignored requests asking for a detailed financial accounting of staff time spent organizing these political junkets.

— An undisclosed amount of staff costs collaborating with ‘No on F’ attorneys to lobby the Ballot Simplification Committee.

Wow. A supposed “leader” of the Run Ed Run Draft Ed Lee for Mayor movement, a person who was rewarded with a Supervisor position for selling out her progressive values, just got a big fat vote of NO CONFIDENCE last night, courtesy of the Democratic Party of San Francisco.

Kind of like this:

Ah, let’s meet some of the candidates for D5 Supe. So we have, from left to right, Thoughtful, Thoughtful, OMG I’M SO PISSED OFF WHAT GIVES THESE, THESE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION ME, Thoughtful, and Thoughtful:

And here’s the rest of the official Dem Party endorsements from last night’s meeting

“SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 15, 2012) — The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee tonight voted on the party’s endorsements for local candidates and propositions that will appear on the Nov. 6, 2012 Consolidated General Election ballot. The governing board of San Francisco’s Democratic Party voted to endorse the following:

Though comprehensive official minutes of the DCCC’s special meeting at California State Office Building’s Milton Marks Auditorium will be forthcoming, member and committee reports included several updates on: the upcoming fall campaign; the hiring of a new executive director; current party finances and fundraising plans, including an event centered on President Obama’s nomination acceptance speech; voter registration; the redesigned party website and expanded communications efforts; and amending practices to meet many standards codified in the Brown Act and S.F. Sunshine Ordinance. The DCCC also voted on a vendor for its fall slate card program.

Public comments included numerous speakers advocating individually and on their organizations’ behalf for local candidates and measures; a monthly update on Organizing for America; concerns that the California Democratic Party endorsed Proposition 35 without consideration to official opponents and concerns from the sex worker community. Two speakers called on DCCC members to address themselves to community concerns that policies governing the Castro’s Rainbow Flag do not comport with Presidential proclamations and other exigencies that merit lowering the flag to half-mast when appropriate.

The lone new business item was a resolution passed by a majority of DCCC members that condemned inflammatory and offensive anti-Muslim advertising on Muni vehicles, and called on city officials and MTA authorities to change policies to prohibit such hate speech in the future.

Members John Rizzo and Hene Kelly closed the meeting by memorializing the late Milton Marks III, a highly regarded Community College Board member and former DCCC colleague, who passed away Aug. 9 at the age of 52. The meeting was adjourned in Marks’s honor.

About the San Francisco Democratic County Central CommitteeSan Francisco’s Democratic County Central Committee, or DCCC, is the governing body of the local Democratic Party as defined in California’s Government Code and Elections Code. The DCCC is comprised of local Democrats elected by voters in each Assembly District, as well as partisan-level Democratic elected officials and nominees who serve as Ex-Officio Officers. Current members elected from the 17th Assembly District are: John Avalos, David Campos, David Chiu, Malia Cohen, Petra DeJesus, Matt Dorsey, Bevan Dufty, Zoe Dunning, Leslie Katz, Rafael Mandelman, Carole Migden, Leah Pimentel, Alix Rosenthal, and Scott Wiener. Members elected from the 19th Assembly District are: Kat Anderson, Kelly Dwyer, Bill Fazio, Tom Hsieh, Mary Jung, Hene Kelly, Meagan Levitan, Eric Mar, Trevor McNeil and Arlo Hale Smith. Ex Officio members are: U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, Attorney General Kamala Harris, State Senators Mark Leno and Leland Yee, and Assemblymembers Tom Ammiano and Fiona Ma.

What’s up with that? Earlier today, people trying to read the SFWeekly got sent to Ohio’s Cuyahoga County, in a way. More precisely, their browsers got sent to Cleveland Scene. Did somebody hack on the pooooor Weekly? Was this some kind of joke against Ohio’s Mistake By the Lake or agin Village Voice Media? Now who would do a thing like that? Thankfully, things are back to normal now.